Fuck Ajit Pai

Retard Alert
Retard Alert

Legally, an ISP cannot deny you access to high-bandwidth services or demand you pay extra for them. Practically, this means the ISP must invest in additional infrastructure to meet the bandwidth demands of these services, and offload costs to us.

Example:

Your Google.com search may take up 1mb of bandwidth, but Google's fingerprinting, advertisements, and background tracking may take up 2mb depending on how long you are on the page. The ISP must provide 3mb of bandwidth. Oh, my ISP is not allowed to discriminate against Google, therefore your internet bill remains high or even gets higher despite new advances in hardware and network infrastructure.

I'll be damned if this poster isn't from /liberty/. However I don't know anything about the issue so I can't comment.

Consider a society where everyone is paid 1 labor voucher per labor hour. Now consider a bread-line that everyone visits at the end of the day to exchange 1 voucher for 1 piece of bread. A number of workers in this bread-line require 3 times the amount of bread because they perform back-breaking intensive labor for a capitalist conglomerate. What I am saying is that the capitalist conglomerate that demands the additional labor should make up the difference, rather than the bread-line offsetting this cost to everyone by upping the voucher-to-bread ratio to 1.1.

The laborers are us. The bread-line is the ISP. The conglomerate is Google, in case this wasn't clear.

I am not sure if I believe this given that I do not think that it is actually what net neutrality is. What I understood of NN was that the ISP was not allowed to charge differently or apply different data rates based on what site you were accessing. Whether the site required higher or lower amounts of data was irrelevant. It also doesn't seem to fit with how bandwidth works, a site accessed at 3mb/s will just load faster than one that is accessed at 1mb/s, but provided that it doesn't time out, it'll still load. And even while NN was enforced, you could buy differing grades of bandwidth, just that it would have to apply to every site equally.

Also, it seems to me that tech megacorps would primarily be interested in maintaining NN so that their massive ad network across millions of sites retains its value. With NN gone, many many smaller sites are at risk of having their bandwidth throttled down, which greatly reduces their advertising space value for the content makers, costing them their investments for no gain.

Correct. Follow through. An ISP is responsible for processing and delivering data, the amount of data transferred (throughput) is their singular concern.
Latency is a legacy issue that has largely been solved with innovation in fiber optics and now shortly with 5g, it is not relevant to an ISP.
Consumer plans do not cap bandwidth.
Smaller sites consume less bandwidth.
I hope to see the online advertising industry (Google) destroyed.

he is just a scapegoat and a constructed hate figure
go back to reddit with this individualising shit

So then how is removing NN a good thing? It doesn't force every ISP to be able to load every site, it forces them to provide each site with even access to be able to be loaded. At no point up till now have I seen anything mentioning the claim that they all have to be able to deliver as much data as a site puts through them, only that they can't discriminate. If a particular site is too bloated for an ISP that doesn't seem to be a NN issue.

Also the point of this is that without NN ISP's are allowed to alter the data they're carrying, meaning that they're allowed to censor or block content that they don't like. How is that a positive thing?